Asparagus Laney Study Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture Notes on the Laney Asparagus study...

Description

Asparagus Laney Study Analysis

Relevant Background “Memories”--are specific structured units that may be quite detailed. “Beliefs”--are less specific and less tied to time and places.

Previous Studies ● Ayers and Reder ○ Planting false information about an event into someone’s head into they believe it to have happened that way. ● Garry and Wade ○ Planting entire false events into someone’s head--into they believed it actually happened to them. ● Braun, Ellis, and Loftus ○ Rich false memories that could include even impossible events. Ex: Meeting Bugs Bunny. False memories and beliefs can have real consequences on someone’s life--being told they got sick as a child after eating junk food/fattening foods; so now they avoid it at all costs.

Purpose/Aim

They sought to test a positive false memory effect: ● That would determine whether subjects developed a false belief or memory and then whether those beliefs induced consequences. Two main questions were addressed: ● Did subjects form false asparagus-related beliefs? ● Did these beliefs have consequences?

Hypothesis(es)

They expected that many subjects would enter the study with low confidence that they had liked asparagus the first time they tried it; and that their suggestions would increase their confidence of that.

Type of Study (Methodology)

Lab study held at the University of California Irvine. Questionnaires used. Independent Measures design--method in which multiple experimental groups are used and participants are only in one group. Each participant is only in one condition of the independent variable during the experiment.

IV(s) & DV(s)

The independent variable was the type of group you were in: the “love group” or the control group.

The dependent variable is the changes in general liking of asparagus and the willingness to eat asparagus in a restaurant setting. Participants/Sample

The subjects were 128 undergraduates at the University who received course credit for their time. Subjects were mostly female (77%) and had a mean age of 20.8. They were run in groups of up to eight when split into the love and control group.

Sampling Technique

Opportunity Sample

Procedure Summary

Session 1: ● Questionnaires were used: ○ Food History Inventory (recorded data from what they remembered before they were ten); contained 24 items--including the critical item: “Loved asparagus the first time you tried it,” in the sixteenth position. ■ Used a rating scale from 1-8; 1 being “definitely did not happen” and 8 being “definitely did happen”. ○ Restaurant Questionnaire was used to assess the desire to eat each of the 32 separate dishes, including the critical item “sauteed asparagus spears,” in a restaurant setting. ■ It was designed to look like a menu with five categories (appetizers, sides, desserts, entrees, and soups and salads). ■ The subjects were then asked how likely they were to eat this if they were at a restaurant from 1-8; 1 being definitely no and 8 being definitely yes. ● Three other filler questionnaires were interspersed with these two questionnaires so that the participants wouldn’t suspect the true nature of the experiment. ○ The filler questionnaires assessed personality, a subset of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and eating habits. Approximately one weeks later. Session 2 ● Subjects returned and were given false feedback about their responses to the materials from Session 1.

○ They were told falsely that the experimenters had entered their data into a computer and it generated a profile of the eating habits when they were a kid. ● A portion of the profile was identical for all of the participants: “you disliked spinach”, “you enjoyed fried foods”, and “you were happy when a classmate brought sweets to school”. The critical item, “you loved to eat cooked asparagus,” was embedded in the third position of the profiles of those who were apart of the love group. ○ To make sure that the subjects were processing the information they were asked brief questions after each part. ■ The asparagus group was asked: “Imagine the setting in which this experience might have happened. Where were you? Who was with you?” ■ “To what extent did this experience affect your adult personality? ● They were asked to rate it on a scale from 1-9; 1 being “not at all” and 9 being “very much”. Subjects were then asked to complete the FHI and Restaurant Questionnaire a second time to assess changes from pre- to post- manipulation. Two additional post-manipulation measures followed. ● Food Preference Questionnaire ○ Subjects rated 62 separate food items (including asparagus) on a likert-type scale. ■ 1= “definitely don’t like to eat (for whatever reason) and 8= “definitely like to eat”. ● Food Cost Questionnaire ○ Subjects were told to indicate how much they would pay for 21 items from a grocery store. ○ A pound of asparagus was on the list as well as other foods also mentioned in past questionnaires (tortilla chips, rice, etc.). ○ There were seven prices that they could choose from (1.90, 2.50, 3.20, 3.80, 4.40, 5.00, and 5.70) as well as an option that said “I would never buy this”. A final questionnaire was given.

● The “Memory or Belief?” Questionnaire (Bernstein 2005) ○ They were to respond to three of the items on the FHI, including the critical item, by indicating whether they: ■ Had a specific memory for the event. ■ Had a belief that the event has occurred but lacked specific memories. ■ Were positive that the event had never occurred. ○ Subjects were told to give as detailed of reasons as possible to why they chose the option they did. When all materials were completed, subjects were fully debriefed and excused. Each day’s procedures took less than half an hour for subjects to complete. Data Type (Qual./Quan./Mixed)

Mixed-Quantitative results up until the last questionnaire.

Data Analysis

Food History Inventory. ● 31 participants were excluded from the results because, pre-manipulation, they stated that they had already loved asparagus (a five or higher on the FHI scale. ● Mean ratings--remaining 46 subjects in the Love group increased 2.6 points after the manipulation. ● The mean ratings of the 51 remaining control subjects increased just 0.2 points. Memories or Beliefs? ● Later in the study, subjects were asked whether they had a specific memory of loving asparagus the first time they tried it, or believed that it had been the case in the absence of any specific memory, or whether they were positive that it had not happened in the past ● Love Group. ○ 22% (n=10) of Love subjects indicated that they had a memory. ○ 35% (n=16) indicated that they had a belief. ○ 44% (n=20) were positive that it had not happened before. ● Control Group ○ 12% (n=6) reported that they had a memory.

“Believers”--those who were susceptible to the manipulation. ● (Morris, Laney, Bernstein, and Loftus, 2006) “Non Believers”--those who weren’t susceptible to the manipulation.

Conclusions/Interpretations

Experiment 2

○ 28% (n=14) had a belief that they had a memory. ○ 61% (n=31) were positive that the event had not occured. Believers Versus Non Believers ● To meet the criteria to be placed into the believers category: ○ Subjects must have given not only a low rating to the critical FHI item at session 1; but also increased their rating during session 2. ○ Subjects must have given a “memory” or “belief” response on the “Memory or Belief” questionnaire, indicating that they believed the event has occurred, or specifically remembered it occuring. ● To meet the criteria to be placed in the nonbeliever category: ○ Subjects in the love group had to fail either one or both of the believer criteria listed above. ● 48% (n=22) of all low-starting subjects in the Love group met the criteria to be labeled believers. ○ Just two males (18% of males in the experimental group) met the criteria to be labeled believers, while 20 females (57%) met the criteria. ● The ratings of these 22 believers increased an average of 4.5 points from session 1 to session 2 on their FHI item. ● Non believers increased an average of just 0.9 points. FHI love group ● Did subjects fall for the suggestion that they love asparagus the first time they tried it? Yes. ● They became more confident that they loved asparagus the first time they tried it as a child. Restaurant Questionnaire ● Believers reported more desire to eat the critical asparagus item at session 2 than controls and the repeated measures ANOVA yielded both a significant main effect of condition and a significant interaction of condition and time point such that believers rated more favorably than controls, and believers’ ratings increased from pre- to post manipulation, while controls’ did not.

Purpose/Aim

To address the question of the underlying mechanisms of the current and previous findings of false memory consequences. “Why might false beliefs about having loved a healthy food the first time one tried it lead to increases memory consequences?” They wanted to explore whether, after our false asparagus manipulation, the very sight of asparagus would be more appealing to subjects.

Hypothesis

N/A

IV/DV

Independent Variable: whether participants had a false belief embedded into them Dependent Variable: the use of 4 questionnaires and the participants feedback to the slideshows.

Sample

The subjects were 103 undergraduates at the University of Washington who received course credit for their time. ● 62% of subjects were female and their mean age was 19.9. ● These subjects were assigned to one of two conditions: Love (n=58) and control (n=45).

Sampling Technique

Opportunity Sample

Data Type Qual./Quan./Mixed

Qualitative and quantitative data via pencil and paper questionnaires.

Materials and Procedures

Session 1 ● On their arrival at the lab, subjects were told that their data would be entered into a computer that would generate a profile based on their answers. ○ No cover story was given. ● Subjects completed the FHI, Food Preference, and and Restaurant Questionnaires, as in Experiment 1. ○ The subjects took the Restaurant Questionnaire along with the Food Preference one both preand post manipulation. ○ Interspersed within these three questionnaires were two filler questionnaires--so that they participants wouldn’t see the real reason behind the questionnaires. ■ The two filler questionnaires were the

personality and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scales. One week later. Session 2 ● Subjects returned and received false feedback about their materials from session 1--being told again that their results had been entered into a computer and a profile had been generated. ● Again, the critical item had been placed in the third position. ○ It, however, stated “you loved asparagus the first time you ate it.” ● Controls were told nothing about asparagus. ● Subjects in the experimental group (and not the control group) then completed an elaboration exercise. ○ They were instructed to answer questions about their memory for this event, or, if they lacked a specific memory, to imagine what might have happened. ■ They were asked for their age at the time of the vent. Who was with the,. And how it made them feel. ● All subjects then completed an additional exercise that asked them “ what is the most important childhood, food-related event in your life that your food profile did not report? Please explain in the space below.” ● Subjects than viewed a series of 20 slides and completed four ratings of each slide. ○ The slides were photographs of common foods (spinach, strawberries, pizza, etc.) ○ Each slide was displayed for 30 seconds. ○ Subjects rated each photograph according to (1) how appetizing they found the food depicted in the photo, (2) how disgusting they found the food depicted in the photo, (3) whether the photo was taken by a novice, amateur, or expert photographer, and (4) the artistic quality of the photos. ■ The first, second, and fourth questions were rated on a scale from 1= not at all to 8= very much. ● Subjects than completed the FHI, restaurant, and food inventory questionnaire for the second time. ● Subjects were than finally asked to complete the

Memory or Belief? Questionnaire as in Experiment 1. When all materials were collected; the participants were fully debriefed and told they could leave. Results

Week 1 ● 'Love Condition: 1.7 ● Control Condition: 1.5 Week 2 ● 'Love' Condition: 4.2 ● Control Condition: 2.5 30 were excluded (18 from love and 12 from control) since they loved asparagus the 1st time trying it before the manipulation

Main Findings/Conclusions

Those with a false memory were more likely to rate a photo of asparagus as more appetizing/less disgusting Photo measure provides step towards understanding cognitive mechanisms associate with false memories as they primed participants to process more positive images Positive response interpreted as familiarity and participants misattributed it to childhood experiences consequently

Final Thoughts on the Study Overall Strengths of the Study

Sample ● Large number of participants ● Generalizable

Weaknesses of the Study

Sample ● Participants are less likely to drop out because they were receiving course credit. ● Low generalizability because the sample was predominantly females.

Ecological Validity Ethics of Study (Positive and/or Negative)

Strengths ● Informed consent ● Debriefed Weaknesses ● RTW--felt like they couldn't withdraw because they were getting course credit.

● Deception Usefulness/Applications

The positive feedback could conceivably aid in the clinical treatment of certain disorders. ● Generalized anxieties, phobias, etc.

Relation to Psych Issues

Nature vs. Nurture ● The subjects were conditioned to like/not like a food; they were taught to do it--so it is considered Nurture....